accepting it; and it was then concluded to abstain from inserting any article in the treaty, in respect either to the fisheries, or the navigation of the Mississippi.

Thus was the father of rivers forever, it is to be hoped, released from all foreign incumbrance in respect to navigation; whilst, on the other hand, by a treaty with Great Britain, concluded in 1818, the American right to the fisheries was satisfactorily secured. In this, as in almost every other instance, time has demonstrated the wisdom of the policy insisted on by Mr. Clay. Although the success of that policy was owing less to the co-operation of his colleagues than to the obstinacy of the British plenipotentiaries, his merit in defending it is not to be undervalued on that account. The views which were taken by him in 1814, are now the views of the American people. The importance to our country of the exclusive navigation of the Mississippi, is, at present, properly appreciated; and we may safely say, that its navigation could not now be obtained by Great Britain, in exchange for the most valuable privilege in her gift. It should be recorded, in honour of Mr. Clay's liberality of feeling, that although a majority of the commissioners had been opposed to him on the subject of the Mississippi, he did ample justice to the purity of their motives, in a speech which he delivered in Congress, during the session of 1815-16.

The negotiation of the treaty of Ghent may be safely pronounced one of the most successful in the history of our foreign relations. It was concluded at a time when the whole power of Britain was directed against us—a power which had wrestled single handed with half the nations of Europe. The star of Napoleon had gone down, not, indeed, forever-but to rise only with that sickly and ominous glare which was quenched on the plains of Belgium. The ambition which had threatened

England with irresistible invasion, was no longer to be dreaded; and our country was left to contend with the colossal strength of an enemy, which had torn the diadem from the brow of the hero of Austerlitz, and shaken asunder the confederation of the Rhine. Under such circumstances it was, in truth, a responsible and an unwelcome task, to negotiate a treaty of peace and amity with the commissioners of Great Britain. But the result has proved, that this task, difficult as it may have been, was wisely and faithfully executed. The honour of our country was preserved;-the objects for which we had contended were secured by the general spirit, if not by the letter of the treaty; and the clamours of faction were hushed into silence, by the honourable termination of a struggle, which had been denounced as the certain precursor of our downfall.

It is to be regretted, that a controversy of an unpleasant nature should have since arisen between two of the distinguished commissioners of the United States, in reference to this treaty. We shall enter upon the subject of this controversy only so far as it relates to Mr. Clay.

On the day after the signing of the treaty of Ghent, our commissioners wrote a joint letter to the Secretary of State, explanatory of the course they had taken during the latter part of the negotiation; and containing a concise and summary narrative of the proceedings of the mission in relation to the fisheries and the navigation of the Mississippi. That part of the letter which referred to the offer of the navigation, was made to read, as an offer by a majority only of the American mission. The word "majority" was inserted through the agency of Mr. Russell, at the desire of Mr. Clay. In a letter of the same date, to the Secretary, Mr. Russel acknowledged that he was in the minority on that question, and reserved to him

self the power of stating his reasons for differing from his colleagues. These reasons were given by him in a letter, written at a subsequent period.

At the ratification of the treaty of peace, only a part of the correspondence of the negotiators was given to the publick. The rest remained safely locked up in the archives of the government, until the spring of 1822, when a call was made for it by the house of representatives, and soon after for the letter of Mr. Russell, where he assigned his reasons for differing from the majority of his colleagues on the subject above mentioned. In answer to this latter call, the president, in his message to the house, stated that no letter or communication of that description was on file in the state department, but that he had found one among his own papers. Prior to this discovery, Mr. Russell delivered to the secretary of state a document, purporting to be the duplicate of the one found among the private papers of the president. Both of these letters were transmitted to the house, together with some remarks from Mr. Adams, explanatory of the views of a majority of the negotiators, and in vindication of their conduct. To this Mr. Russell replied, through the columns of a public paper; and in turn called out Mr. Adams, through a similar medium. The disputants were severe upon each other; but neither the conduct nor the motives of Mr. Clay were impeached by either. Both seemed to consider that he had acted well the part which his country had assigned him. Some errors, however, into which Mr. Adams had fallen, relative to the part which Mr. Clay had taken, in regard to the navigation of the Mississippi and the fisheries, were alluded to by the latter in a brief note, published in the Washington Intelligencer, in 1822. In this note, Mr. Clay declares himself unwilling, at a time so unpropitious to calm and dispassionate investigation, to

enter into the particulars of the Ghent negotiation, and stated, that under such circumstances he would not even be provoked into a controversy with either of his late colleagues. He intimated, however, that at a season better suited to deliberation and reflection, he would give his views to the publick.

We have been informed by the intimate friends of Mr. Clay, that he considers the partial pledge given by him to the publick, to have been redeemed by the unauthorized publication, in the autumn of 1828, of his private correspondence with Mr. Russell. In that correspondence, Mr. Clay states, with a characteristick frankness, the views he entertained at Ghent, of the nature of the treaty of peace of 1783 with Great Britain, and of the effects produced upon the stipulations of that treaty, by a declaration of war. He speaks of the discussions among the American commissioners, respecting the fisheries, and the navigation of the river Mississippi, and of the part taken by him in those discussions. But although differing from a majority of the mission on some points, especially from Mr. Adams, he no where impugns the integrity, the honesty, or patriotism of their motives.

PART THIRD.

SECTION FIRST.

On the return of Mr. Clay to America, after the discharge of his important mission, he was every where received with the liveliest demonstrations of gratitude. In Kentucky, in particular, the tide of feeling in his favour was high and irresistible. Even before his arrival, he was unanimously elected a member of congress from the district he had formerly represented. But some doubts arising as to the legality of his election, while absent from the country, a new one was ordered, which resulted in a similar expression of the popular will. At the commencement of the next session of congress, he was elected speaker of the house by an almost unanimous vote.

Although the return of peace had brought gladness to almost every bosom, and had been hailed by illuminations, bonfires, and thanksgivings, yet a high and an important duty remained to be performed by the representatives of the nation. The publick credit was impaired-the circulating medium disordered the paper currency depreciated—a large debt was to be liquidated. A multitude of laws, which had been passed during the embargo, non-intercourse, and war, were to be repealed, and new ones enacted, better suited to the change in our national condition. The army and the navy were to be regulated by a proper peace establishment. In addition, new interests had risen up, which loudly called for governmental protection. Our relative situation was changed. The pacification of all Europe, by the prostration of the power of Napoleon, had left the nations at liberty to cultivate the arts of peace, and call forth their own internal resources. We could no longer enjoy the carrying trade without competition, or